MOKGORO J requires him to do. If this Court can formulate its order in a way that avoids this dilemma I have no doubt that it would be just and equitable to do so. [95] Since the amendment to the existing section 3(c) introduced by the Welfare Laws Amendment Act does not change the substance of the existing section, or alter the words that are the subject of the constitutional objection, it seems to me that it would be just and equitable for this Court to declare that the words “or permanent resident” must be read into the existing section, and into the section as it will read once section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act is brought into force. To refrain from doing so would be to put form above substance. The result would be that the applicants and others in their position would not receive the full protection of the rights to which they are entitled. A just and equitable order would therefore be to read in the words “or permanent resident” after the word “citizen” into section 3(c) of the Act in its present form and in the form it will have when section 3 of the Welfare Laws Amendment Act comes into force. [96] Following the reading-in of the above words, the sections will then read: “Section 3 [of the Social Assistance Act]: Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person shall be entitled to the appropriate social grant if he satisfies the Director-General that he — (a) is an aged or disabled person or a war veteran; (b) is resident in the Republic at the time of the application in question; (c) is a South African citizen or permanent resident; and (d) complies with the prescribed conditions.” (Emphasis added.) 59